This works for me.
Sarah Palin – Governor of Alaska and VP choice for John McCain
Friday August 29, 2008
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This works for me.
Sarah Palin – Governor of Alaska and VP choice for John McCain
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Powered by WordPress
I think it was smart in she’ll possibly pull him more middle votes, but, he may alienate his ultra conservatives. but, it’s not like they’ll go vote for barak
Comment by Jocelyn — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 6:17 am
This was one of the dumbest moves any presidential candidate has ever made. Or not.
Comment by Richard — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 6:55 am
Well, I can’t agree that it’s as dumb as picking Dan Quayle and that worked out ok. But yeah, it is certainly a bold move.
Comment by Don — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 8:42 am
I can’t see how you would alienate the ultra-conservatives when she’s pretty conservative herself. I’m not sure how she would alienate them?
Comment by Don — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 8:44 am
I think this is going to make a very interesting presidential election.
Obama (inexperienced) + Biden (elder statesman).
McCain (elder statesman) + Palin (inexperienced).
Black, White, Woman, Man, Liberal, Centerest, Conservative, All we need now is an Indian Chief
Comment by Scott — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Palin’s husband is part Eskimo. Would that count?
Comment by Don — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Good Enough
Comment by Scott — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Don’t forget old or young to toss into the mix.
Comment by Mom or Gma — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 10:34 am
I am excited about the possibilities. Palin is the mom of a special needs child which might carry some more weight for special education; a topic that interests me!
Comment by Heather — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
I’m very happy that we will see such a huge historical moment in our lifetime. And I actually have a say. We will either have our first Black president, or our first Female vice president. I think both biden and palin were very smart picks. They filled a gap their running mates had. This election makes a lot more sense then the most recent ones. There’s more on the line then just an election. It’s going to be a chapter in the history books.
Comment by Jocelyn — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
What really counts is what women really do at the ballot box. I would rather have informed voters making intelligent decisions on who would best represent the nation. Voters who cast their ballots following their emotions and passions of equality can lead us into nothing but an endless discussion of fairness.
Comment by Scott — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
With this pick, McCain has finally won me over.
Comment by Donna — Saturday August 30, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
I might be reading you wrong Scott, but are you saying women will vote for McCain simply because he has a woman on his ticket? Speaking of equality and fairness the same can be said of African American voters voting for Obama. Women have had to make intelligent voting decisions every election prior to this one and I guarantee I will continue to vote based on what people stand for not their race or gender!
Comment by Heather — Sunday August 31, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
No Heather. I’m pretty sure he’s saying the exact opposite. But I’ll let him clarify.
Comment by Don — Sunday August 31, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Derek’s comment, when he heard about Palin, was that McCain was making a “Hail Mary”. A very risky move that could pay off big, or could backfire. Time will tell.
The dynamics of the VP debates next month will be interesting. Some have suggested that Biden will have to tone down his attacks so as not to be seen brow-beating a woman, and the emotional effect that will have on voters. But nobody worried about attacking Hillary, so that probably isn’t a concern.
And the big question is: Will disappointed Hillary
groupiessupporters will put their weight behind her because she is a woman, or not because she is so opposite Hillary on most of her positions?A very interesting presidential election just became even more interesting.
Comment by Daryl — Sunday August 31, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
I think Derek was probably right, although I suspect he heard that comment first on dailykos or NPR or whatever left wing news outlet he listens to. 😉
All kidding aside I don’t see that many Hillary supporters changing their vote but notice Donna said this pick won her over. I think it probably changed more Republican minds than Democrat.
Comment by Don — Sunday August 31, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Wait a minute Derek. A “Hail Mary” is thrown in the last down when the team is losing and the clock is running out and that’s the only hope for winning.
It’s no where near the last down in this political campaign, McCain is NOT losing (he and Obama are in a dead heat according to the polls) and there’s plenty of time left on the clock. No, if you’re going to use sports metaphors, you gotta use them correctly! This is more like a “Designated Hitter”. McCain has his strengths (pitching) and weaknesses (batting) and so he has called in someone to add the home runs and together they can win the game. 🙂
Comment by Donna — Sunday August 31, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
I forgot to add … Go Diamondbacks!!!
Comment by Donna — Monday September 1, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Donna,
You said that with this pick, McCain finally won you over. What does that mean?
Were you undecided between him and Obama? Or just not going to vote?
Why did this pick change your opinion? Is it because she is a woman? Or is it her position and beliefs? Or some other reason?
Comment by Daryl — Tuesday September 2, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Undecided between McCain and Obama? You’re not really serious are you?
Comment by Don — Tuesday September 2, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
I feel like the ticket is now conservative enough. McCain lost some of my favor when he refused to support a US Constitutional marriage amendment, but the Saddleback interviews reaffirmed for me that he does hold many of the same values I do. Sarah Palin completes the ticket with a woman who I think will fight for the issues I hold important (at least from what I have heard about her so far).
No, I wouldn’t have voted for Obama, but I don’t hate him. I just don’t think he’ll keep our country strong enough. His cut and run approach to Iraq scares me the most. I don’t really care that he might raise taxes; they go up and down. But our national security against people who commit terrorism and the countries that harbor them is important to me. That’s where I think John McCain is strongest.
Comment by Donna — Tuesday September 2, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Well, she showed that she can deliver a speech. That was very well done.
Of course, as others have said, eloquence doesn’t necessarily make a leader…
Comment by Daryl — Wednesday September 3, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Yep. She’s not as good as Obama at delivering a speech but few are. And yes, I agree on your second point too.
Comment by Don — Wednesday September 3, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Donna,
What does “cut and run” mean, anyway? “Run” I can understand, as a metaphor for retreat or withdraw. But “cut”? Supporters of our continued presence in Iraq like to use the expression (which I first remember hearing from Bush), but I don’t know what it means.
Anyway, Obama’s position on Iraq is almost identical with the plan that Iraq has asked for from the US, and which Bush seems finally willing to go along with — a measured, planned withdrawal taking a year and a half or so. Whatever “cut and run” means, that doesn’t sound like it. And he does propose increasing our troop level in Afghanistan, where I think they should have stayed in the first place.
And about taxes — under Obama’s plan your taxes would go down, not up. Only those making over $250,000 a year would see tax increases. They kept harping on this at the convention last night, how he would raise taxes, but it’s not true for most of us. See here. By the way, this is a very useful site to get the facts about campaign claims, from both sides.
Comment by Daryl — Thursday September 4, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
I’m amazed that your side still doesn’t get it about taxes. Yes, Obama says he’s only going to raise taxes on the “rich” and on “business”. How do you think the price of goods and services are set? I’ll explain since your side seems to not get it. The price a company sets for it’s goods and services are set by how much it costs them to produce that service or good and then a percentage is added for their profit. Guess what. If a business’s taxes go up then their profit goes down if they don’t raise their prices. Now who pays those raised prices? That’s right, we do. The people who’s taxes didn’t go up still end up paying them but the Democrats can claim it’s the businesses fault for wanting to keep their profits at a given level. Once again I have to point out that is Socialism at it’s core.
Comment by Don — Thursday September 4, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Your argument sounds good, but unfortunately isn’t born up by history and statistics.
Obviously changing taxes anywhere can have an impact on all aspects of the economy. But the results do not always obey simple expectations.
This book, by a Princeton professor, summarized here (hopefully you can see without logging on) reports that the GDP and average worker income levels increase almost twice as much under Democratic administrations as under Republican. That’s true for the wealthy as well as the poor — they all do better under Democrats.
Furthermore, the gap between rich and poor decreases under Democratic presidents, but increases “vastly” under Republican.
You can argue philosophically that the gap should increase, since the wealthy are being held down by unequal tax rates. And you can argue that it’s not the government’s role to bail out the poor. If they can’t make it, and die of starvation, or because they can’t afford health care, that’s just natural selection. That’s the difference of political perspective between Democrats and Republicans.
Comment by Daryl — Thursday September 4, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
That data by itself is only a small part of the story. Remember at the end of 1999 we were starting to enter a down time.
The bottom line is the economy is not affected much by who the President is. Do you also have the statistics of the makeup of the Senate and Congress during these times? They are the ones who really have the largest impact on the economy. If I recall the Republicans took over both houses around 94, right about the time the economy started heading up. Then we were hit with 9/11 yet the economy did pretty well after a setback. Then about 2 years ago the Democrats took over both houses and now we are in trouble again.
Comment by Don — Thursday September 4, 2008 @ 3:23 pm